Re: Object-relational impedence

"Leslie Sanford" <jabberdabber_at_bitemehotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47ddfa17$0$30701$4c368faf_at_roadrunner.com...
>> "David BL" wrote:>> <snip>>> > Consider the following three groups of names> >> > A: int, double, point, circle, ellipse, square, string, set<int>,> > tuple, relation> >> > B: employee, company, invoice, manager, department> >> > C: mutex, textbutton, guiwindow, stack, queue, threadpool,> > printerproxy> >> >> > Consider these as names for built-in types, structs or classes in a> > language like C++. I'm characterising the groups as follows> >> > A: These are value-types. A value is mathematically well defined,> > eternal and immutable. A value-type is a set of values plus> > operations on those values. Variables of a value-type can normally be> > assigned with any value of that type.> >> > B: These are conceptual things that aren't mathematically formalised> > and typically exist in time and space but are external to the abstract> > computational machine> >> > C: These designate types of objects where object means an identifiable> > abstract state machine embedded within an overall abstract> > computational machine. Objects do not generally represent values and> > do not in general support assignment. Objects always have identity,> > state and behaviour with respect to the abstract machine. Objects> > cannot be understood outside the computational machine in which they> > are defined.>> <snip rest>>> This was a tour de force post. I enjoyed it quite a bit. Thanks.

I agree. A tour de force. A keeper. My thanks as well. I'm going to
reply to one bit of it in a separate reply.
Received on Mon Mar 17 2008 - 06:47:51 CDT